Quote:
A reply to JB from Wirral, Firstly around 60 drivers fought the Wirral case Mark Royden put his name as the applicant because he is the branch sec of the local T&G branch. This in effect meant that he was liable for court costs if we lost(which we did) when this was pointed out by the solicitors just about everyone took one step back, and Mark was the only one to put his head onto the block, so give him some credit.
I was going to wait until you replied to my last post asking if you were one of the Wirral 91, I can't wait for your reply so I will assume you were.
If you had said yes you were one of the Wirral 91 I was going to post this little gem.
There were 52 supposed members of the Wirral branch of the TGWU who were the original complainants. However, considering that you were one of them it makes me wonder why you don't know the true facts of what transpired. By the time it got to court another 39 had been added to make a grand total 91. Perhaps some people on here will wonder how a person such as yourself who was supposedly involved in the case doesn’t have a clue as to how many people were actually listed as complainants.
The Royden case has been dissected many times on here in the past and if you care to delve into the archives you may come up with some interesting comments. If you prefer not to do that I'm sure Sussex or TDO or even myself would be only to happy to send you a copy of the Trial. If you follow the links at the bottom of this post you can indulge yourself some more on Mr Royden and the 91 Wirral Branch members he represented.
It is interesting to see your interpretation of the law regarding court costs I just wonder how you came to the conclusion that you did when the facts of the case contradict your statement completely. I don't suppose you have heard of the Civil Procedure rules or the 1981 Supreme Court Act because if you had you wouldn’t have made the false statement about costs. I suggest you read the Royden case thoroughly and perhaps then you will see the gravity of your mistake with reference to costs.
By the way, most people on here now the Royden case backwards so please don't insult our intelligence by offering up a factually wrong interpretation of events. Quote:
Secondly Crawley was under starters orders to delimit.when we were in London for the leave appeal we met some Crawley boys and they showed us their officers report, as soon as we read it we told them that they would remove the numerical limit, but only license purpose-built vehicles not older than 3 years old. Apart from it being 4 not 3 years old we were bang on.
I don't know why you brought this up I haven't even mentioned Crawley apart from the fact that it is in my list of councils who at some time changed their policy either "BEFORE" or "AFTER" the publication of the OFT report.
Otherwise Crawley has no significance to me at all.
Go here and type in the name Royden
http://www2.bailii.org/
When you have done that you can go here and see what a real member of the Wirral 91 said.
http://www.taxitalk.co.uk/pages/issue125/ofurban.htm
And when you have read that you can go here and see who acted on behalf of Royden and the Wirral 91.
http://www.39essex.co.uk/index.php?pro_id=000014
Best wishes
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
dont expect to get any sense out of sussex,t,d.o.